Darline Halloran v. Jo Anne Barnhart, as Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an ALJ demonstrates good reason for giving a treating source’s opinion little weight where the assessment is not supported by the source’s own treatment notes
• stating that treating physician’s opinion is not controlling when contradicted by “other substantial evidence in the record”
• holding that, although the ALJ did not explicitly follow the treating physician rule, the record and opinion made clear that the ALJ “applied the substance” of the rule and the claimant “received the rule’s procedural advantages”
• holding that “the option of treating physician is not afforded controlling weight where, as here, the treating physician issued opinions that are not consistent with other substantial evidence in support, such as the opinions of other medical experts”
• concluding that “the substance of the treating physician rule was not traversed” even though it was “unclear on the face of the ALJ’s opinion whether the ALJ considered (or even was aware of) the applicability of the treating physician rule”
• stating that courts “[should] continue remanding when [they] encounter opinions from ALJ’s that do not comprehensively 'set forth reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).